> On 06/13/2019 02:56 AM, BorgLabs - Kate Draven wrote:
> > HI
> >=20
> > I would like everyone's opinion on this.
> >=20
> > I'm trying figure out the benefits of either staying with the LTS kerne=
> l or=20
> > with the lastest kernel. The machines are every day use and stability i=
> s=20
> > important.=20
> >=20
> > Am I tossing away any benefits, of the latest kernel, if I use the 4.8x=
> /9x=20
> > kernel. Or do the benefits of the 5.1x kernel out weigh any instability=
> ?=20
> >=20
> > I'd like all schools of thought.
> >=20
> > Thanks in advance,
> >=20
> > Kate
> 
> Kate,
> 
>   Unless you have super-new bleeding-edge hardware that needs a new featu=
> re
> added in 5.1 that is not available in previous versions -- then 5.1 provi=
> des
> absolutely no benefit. Any tweak that 5.1 provided to help with Spectre
> performance mitigation, etc.. will likely be backported and in a LTS kern=
> el.
> 
>   I have Arch (that always runs the current upstream version of the kerne=
> l,
> 5.1.9 currently), and Arch also provides an LTS kernel using 4.19. I have=
>  a
> SuSE leap 42.3 install running the 4.4 kernel, SuSE leap 15.0/15.1 instal=
> ls
> with the 4.12 version, I have a Pi running Debian/jessie with the 4.9 ARM
> kernel, and from a general computing/feature/functionality standpoint, it
> makes no difference.
> 
>   Now if you have bleeding-edge hardware that is only supported in the la=
> test
> greatest kernel -- then yes, there is a difference, otherwise you won't k=
> now
> the difference.
> 
>   HTH
> 
> --=20
> David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks David,

This is my thinking as well. I have no real bleeding edge tech, I tend to stay 
away from it. Just wanted to challenge me decision , in case I was wrong.

Kate